The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc.

Ahhh...you can't obviously debate my points, so your looking for any excuse you can to weasle out of the debate. It's obvious that I addressed every point you were talking about, but you are too pissd in your pants scared to address it point by point. Sorry, thanks for playing, try again later.

Thats the problem with you Socialists. You get it into your head that it's the job of the Government to "legislate morality". That you need to support the "wars without end" due to the positive moral benefits involved. WHich is JUST the sort of thinking that got us welfare, affirmative action, and using public taxes for other "social morality" projects.

"With all due respect you are living in a dream world. The idea that coke, which has stimulant qualities that are well known for keeping people awake all night..and sometimes nights on end...has NOTHING to do with truancy on the job, doesn't pass the laugh test. Apologists for legalization of drugs have a such a capacity for denial, it's just amazing."

Well, if you hadn't flunked Logic 101, you might understand what he's talking about:

Ok, since you claim to be the professor of FR "Logic 101", then you just explain what he was talking about.

Certainly, cocaine use can be factor for a problem with truancy, but it's use doesn't guarentee it. More productive hours are lost through abuse of cigaretts (Cig Breaks outside most office buildings now)

Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what dude? With all due respect this boarder-lines on the retarded.
Cigarette abuse causes more problems than cocaine abuse in the work place?
I'm sorry, but I have to stop laughing before I respond to this one.

Ahhh...you can't obviously debate my points, so your looking for any excuse you can to weasle out of the debate. It's obvious that I addressed every point you were talking about, but you are too pissd in your pants scared to address it point by point. Sorry, thanks for playing, try again later.

ROFL! Actually you are right about one thing...I am laughing so much I'm almost pissing my pants every time I read one more of your pathetic blow-hard responses that address NONE or my points.
You are hilarious.

Everything I've said is true. I bet I know more about cocaine addiction than you will ever know.

Thats the problem with you Socialists.

Where the hell did that come from? I'm the most pro-capitalistic person you could ever meet.
How typical of single issue fanatics to throw wild and hysterical accusations at those they disagree with rather than address their posts on the level.
Grow up.

You've obviously never lived in a neighborhood overrun by crack heads. Anybody who has... can tell you that nothing of value is safe in a crack neighborhood.

You obviously can't understand the nature of my argument, which separates theft and other victim-ful crimes from that of toking coke.

In one section of Miami, I actually used to have to take the battery out of my car at night and put it back in the morning to drive to work, because the crack heads would steal it otherwise.

You could advocate imposition of the death penalty for third-time car battery thiefs for all I care, in your attempt to deal with how you were wronged by those people. But again you fail to distinguish theifs from tokers. Are you capable of separating those issues? Or have they become as intertwined in your head as Tom Mauser's confusion of gun owners in general with the murderers of his son at Columbine? Gun control that treats all people as if they are murderers makes just as much sense as the War On (some) Drugs that treats all drugs users as battery-stealing crackheads. Neither is even remotely close to reality.

A friend of mine started on crack after exhausting their fondness for other narcotics. They hit rock bottom while stealing a Ronald McDonald change collection case (and for the curious, a dealer did accept $5 in change). Less than one month later they stopped using hard drugs.

Some people have more control over themselves than others. In a free society we risk having drug addicts, murderers, and other abusers of rights. By allowing government the power to enforce an illusion of morality we risk falling into a torpor from which we will never wake as free individuals. The spate of corporate corruption is a symptom of this phenomenon.

The ruin caused by drug abuse is familiar to me, but it is the WOsD that affects my rights and takes my money (taxes) every day despite who I associate with. Therefore I support whatever legislation is necessary, at the state level, to destroy the black market.

"You've obviously never lived in a neighborhood overrun by crack heads. Anybody who has... can tell you that nothing of value is safe in a crack neighborhood."

You obviously can't understand the nature of my argument, which separates theft and other victim-ful crimes from that of toking coke.

What's to understand?
Would you also like to make a distinction betweem child molestors and those who toot coke?
Who cares?
The fact remains that in neighborhoods where coke/crack abuse is rampant, the level of theft and crime in general is incredibly high. And it is directly related to crack addiction.

A friend of mine started on crack after exhausting their fondness for other narcotics. They hit rock bottom while stealing a Ronald McDonald change collection case (and for the curious, a dealer did accept $5 in change).

LOL...I worked for vending companies in Miami while addicted to crack...and actually bought rocks for $10-$20 in nickels confiscated from coin changers.
God I am so ashamed now.

Now I know why they are chained down.

The fact remains that in neighborhoods where coke/crack ~~abuse~~ enforcement is rampant, the level of theft and crime in general is incredibly high. And it is directly related to crack ~~addiction~~ prohibition.

What's to understand? Would you also like to make a distinction betweem child molestors and those who toot coke? Who cares?

This is why no one is taking you seriously here. Everyone has tried to explain to you the distinction between these two things, and when it's explained to you, over and over again, you just do the equivalent of covering your ears, and humming. You don't want to understand, because it means you might have to give up your Socialist viewpoint of legislating morality; legislation of basic morality being a viewpoint antithetical to any real Conservative.

But we'll try it again:

The BASIC ACT of Theft/Molestation/Robbery CAN NOT OCCUR without the rights of one citizen being violated by another person. THEREFORE, it is in the best interest of Society to make these things illegal. The one and only real job of the Government is to enforce protection of an individual citizens rights.

In comparison, the basic act of one yobo snorting up a line in his house violates the rights of no one. He purchased his coke, he's snorting it up, end of story. Now yes, while under the influence of coke, he may commit different crimes, but the actual ACT of tooting doesn't REQUIRE harming another individual, in order to be completed, other than to the tooter themselves. Any crimes commited are seperate and distinct from the actual act of snorting up. Yes, someone high on coke might go out and accidentally kill someone, but that isn't a guarentee. They may just stay around at home, dancing all night to the stereo. If that's all they do, then I don't have any problems with them tooting. If they commit any other crimes, no matter what the excuse, then naturally, they have to pay....

And like it or not, people have a right to self destruction by their own means. If some moron wants to start tooting rat poison, no reason why we should pass laws against that sort of idiotic behavior either.

The fact remains that in neighborhoods where coke/crack abuse is rampant, the level of theft and crime in general is incredibly high. And it is directly related to crack addiction.

And the reason why the crime occurs in the first place is BECAUSE of the laws prohibiting it, not because of the substance itself. The crimes occur because the prices are ridiculously high (black market effect), gangs use violence to control their market regions (black market effect), etc etc. Just as most of the drug related drive by shootings ended in Chicago once Prohibition was lifted, I imagine the same is true once we adopt a more sane "Damage control policy" for this sort of thing.

I'll be honest with you (not that I expect you to keep an open enough mind to try and see things from our side...) I'm not terribly comfortible with legalized cocaine, or any other of those "rare white powders". Pot, yes, thats a no-brainer, sell it like tobacco, now. But I think the best we can realistically hope for is some sort of prescription system that offers cheap and clean. While in my ideal world, such a plan would not be taxpayer funded at all, lets not kid ourselves...it would be in the world of realpolitik. But I can tell you right now, we'd save a bundle in money anyhow, if we damaged controlled...

Again...it's simple logic. Black markets allow drug lords to charge outragous prices, and use criminal enforcement methods to protect their market share. Prohibition proved this, and it's happening all over again.

Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what dude? With all due respect this boarder-lines on the retarded. Cigarette abuse causes more problems than cocaine abuse in the work place? I'm sorry, but I have to stop laughing before I respond to this one.

Well, if you stopped to take a moment and think about it:

Cigarette smokers are statistically shown to have more sick days than your average non-smoker, and in offices where you can't smoke in the building, you have to go outside and take smoke breaks. (And frequent smoke breaks = work not getting done.) Given the number of people smoking compared against the number of people tooting coke, it's obvious that the dollar amount of productivity loss is probably greater for the smoking than tooting.

Easier example for you: Alcohol is the most abused drug in America. Also a legal drug. No brainer: far more productive hours and dollars lost through alcoholism than through the use of coke.

Tell you what..put your money where your mouth is. Go and dig up statistics proving that businesses lose more dollars in productivity through the use of cocaine than with alcohol. If you are so certain of your viewpoint, you should have no trouble finding this data....

As an avowed pro-capitalist you might enjoy this piece about Milton Friedman (one of the Godfathers of Modern Economic Thought) and his feelings on the War (without end) on (some) Drugs.

"What's to understand? Would you also like to make a distinction betweem child molestors and those who toot coke? Who cares?"

This is why no one is taking you seriously here. Everyone has tried to explain to you the distinction between these two things, and when it's explained to you, over and over again, you just do the equivalent of covering your ears, and humming.

Oh, it's the *everybody here agrees with me and nobody agrees with you* argument. All the crispy critters are ganging up on me. Pretty funny, but not very convincing.

And the idea that just because a person doesn't agree with your position, therefore they must not understand you and so you have to explain it over and over is rather childish. Not to mention a waste of time.

Understanding the obvious distinctions between things like stealing, child molestation and drug abuse doesn't change the fact that I disagree with the entire premise of your argument.
Especially the suggestion that drug abuse is a victimless crime. Anyone who's lived in crack infested neighborhoods knows better.

I'n Tony Montana and dees is my server farm.

Meet my leetle fren, a 10GB fiber backbone.

You don't want to understand, because it means you might have to give up your Socialist viewpoint of legislating morality; legislation of basic morality being a viewpoint antithetical to any real Conservative.

Uh, I think you you are confusing the Conservative viewpoint with the Libertarian, or even Liberal viewpoints.
Conservatives, especially those on the religious right believe that morality can be and already is commonly legislated.
And the idea that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is therefore a "Socialist" is nonsense.
Name-calling and throwing labels around isn't going to win any points for your position.

Cigarette smokers are statistically shown to have more sick days than your average non-smoker, and in offices where you can't smoke in the building, you have to go outside and take smoke breaks. (And frequent smoke breaks = work not getting done.) Given the number of people smoking compared against the number of people tooting coke, it's obvious that the dollar amount of productivity loss is probably greater for the smoking than tooting.

Oh, so 100 smokers cost companies a much as 1 crack head in lost productivity.
And this is supposed to be an argument for legalizing coke?

Talk about a skewed equation.
Of course if you're going to use the many smokers/to few coke heads equation for lost productivity....then by the same token we have to look at how much more the many smokers still contribute in productivity compared to the few crack heads.
All things considered, pound for pound crack heads are a bigger liability to society

Talk about a skewed equation. Of course if you're going to use the many smokers/to few coke heads equation for lost productivity....then by the same token we have to look at how much more the many smokers still contribute in productivity compared to the few crack heads.

Ohh..I don't think you want to go down that slippery slope. A lot of the "wealth builders" of the 1980's had fun little coke habits. Even GW was fond of tooting the white stuff, in his wilder and crazier days.

All things considered, pound for pound crack heads are a bigger liability to society

Prove it. I asked you to prove it last time, and you dodged the issue. Why don't you go out there and get statistics showing lost productivity in dollars, court costs, crime costs, etc etc from the use of crack vs. the use of alcohol. Or hell, even the use of prescription drugs. One of two things will happen:

1. The statistics will show that the use of alcohol causes more lost productivity, crime costs, etc than cocaine does.

2. The reverse.

If coke heads are a much bigger drain on society than alcoholics, the statistics should bear this out. So why don't you go ahead and instead of yapping away about it, go out and dig some statistics up. Or are you afraid that I might be right, and the stats will bear this out? What happens if I am right? Will you stump for a new Prohibition?

Uh, I think you you are confusing the Conservative viewpoint with the Libertarian, or even Liberal viewpoints. Conservatives, especially those on the religious right believe that morality can be and already is commonly legislated.

Yes, and they are wrong. Those on the far religious right aren't true Conservatives in the Constitutional sense...they are merely right-wing Socialists. They are merely the otherside of the Atheist/PC Freak coin, who believes THEIR vision of proper behavior MUST be enforced through the blugeon of Government power.

A good Conservative doesn't have to approve of drug use, but will be loyal enough to the Constitution to know what a socialist mockery the current system is.

And the idea that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is therefore a "Socialist" is nonsense. Name-calling and throwing labels around isn't going to win any points for your position.

Well, lets take a look at this:

You support a massive Government buracracy that is fraught with corruption, usurps states of their sovreign rights, makes a mockery of the Constitution, results in botched no-knock raids and dead twelve year olds, and supports "guilty before proven innocent" asset siezures. You seem to believe that because you were weak-willed and had enoguh character flaws that allowed you to become a coke and crack addict (and I mean really..what the hell were you thinking?), then naturally EVERYONE must be the same, and only the Government can "save them from themselves". You keep bringing up the costs to "society", etc etc...

If it walks like a duck, then it's a duck. If it supports Socialist ideology then...

Hell, we have Freepers here who still don't like drugs, but agree that the current WoD is a mockery that wastes lives and money. Personally, I'd be happy if the issue were allowed to be handled by the states on a state by state basis, as it SHOULD be.

You bitch and moan about poor you, because you were a crack addict. If you don't think alcoholics cause just as many problems for those living around them, then you haven't lived with many alcoholics. The only reason why living with a cocaine addict might be worse is becasue cocaine is illegal, and only obtainable through the black market. Trust me, I've lived with alcoholics, and had their poison of choice been illegal, it would have been a far less pretty a situation.

And again, all the peripheral crap you associate with cocaine/crack users are caused by PROHIBITION, not by the drug. Imagine if you had a situation where you could have gotten access to cheap and clean cocaine by prescription, while at the same time was constantly assured that when you were ready to quit, help would be available. That would put a lot of the drug traffic out of business, and is far better than kicking actualy criminals (like theives, muggers and rapists) out of our jails so we can make room for drug users.

But in the end, you are certainly entitled to your own viewpoint, however wrong I personally think it to be...